posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:32 AM
Hello again. Please move if in wrong form.
Quite clearly I have a lot of time spare today. Although I believe I am putting it to good use as I have been scouring over the web and on ATS,
looking at different stories and what not. Now, I recently, literally an hour ago or so, put up a thread regarding Project Camelot. Just asking what
people's views are on them. Not tooting their horn or scorning, just asking for ideas. I explained, that being a newbie in this realm, I am not up to
scratch on all conspiracies, whether it's an assassination, or visits from another life form. When doing such web surfing, I hold the morales that I
will always read and think about everything I look at, at the same time, evidence is something that I, and everybody, will always look for to support
claims. I give everything and everyone a chance, until it comes to a point where I can conclusively say, IN MY MIND, whether I believe them or not.
It's this outlook, which I like to believe many share with me, that has led to me ask ATS, which I believe to be the digital hub for all people
interested in this field, what it would take to believe somebody who comes forward?
Now, the answer, would on the surface, be easy to make. IE, if every person who has come forward would produce evidence and/or cause such a stir as
Edward Snowden, then we would believe easily. However, what if, evidence in the form of pictures, materials or footage was genuinely NOT available,
and all we had purely was the word? Can we still believe? Do we trust or do we completely deny straight away? There are a lot of people who fall under
the category of having nothing to prove anything they say. I imagine many people are thinking of the same people right now. Has the digital age of
video, images and easily available content really extended the line between truth and full of it?
If I was to have genuinely seen an alien craft hover over my house last night, and I saw ET's in the craft, and I instantly posted on here, but had
no evidence, because at the time I may have been having a smoke, and had no camera of phone on me… How many people would believe me? I would be very
frustrated that no one would believe me. Of course I would understand why. I imagine barely anybody would believe me. Of course some people would
understand, but the phrase "Pics or it didn't happen" would be thrown around so quickly time would reverse! (Yeah I'm not good with physics
Now, one could argue, that this situation on believing, is exactly where TPTB want us. In their eyes, for someone to be believed, they would need such
concrete evidence that if one thing may be wrong, for whatever genuine reason, their expose would be thrown in the trash instantly. Thus making TPBT
get away with whatever they are doing.
I really do think this line between truth and full of it is at a critical point. I am just as open minded as the next guy or gal, but even I have
caught myself thinking "No pics no truth". Now, for someone as open minded as me, why have I been influenced that way? And why, as a community which
should be supporting people who "Whistle blow", are we not as supportive to people with such a large amount of evidence, that it's too good to be
true. (Even there, believing is questioned)
If we want to get that ultimate disclosure event (Whatever that is), what do we need to do as a community, to get the world at large to believe
genuine truths that may lack supportive evidence?
What will it take to believe?
Thanks for reading.